Look, she *is* a slut ... and if you're "offended" by my blunt and accurate use of the term, well, frankly, My Dear, I don't give a damn.
If you are "offended" by the truth, then you are part of the problem, you are part of the on-going destruction of America and Western Civilization in general.
The "liberals" and libertarians (and pseudo-conservatives) are not actually offended because Rush Limbaugh called a slut a slut -- they do it themselves, in praise! -- no, no, no! they are "offended" because he, compromised in this regard as he happens to be, dared to mock one of the logical end-points of the so-called "Sexual Revolution".
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, I'm a libertarian for sure, but I was far more offended by the fake liberals (not really even liberals at all) and their insane reaction to Limbaugh, than I was by Rush himself and what he said. In fact, I even have an upcoming post at my blog defending Limbaugh.
Look, she *is* a slut ... and if you're "offended" by my blunt and accurate use of the term, well, frankly, My Dear, I don't give a damn.
I'm not "offended" by her being called a slut. I'm annoyed, because I know what effect it's had - a bad one. It made her look like a victim, rightly or wrongly. It took the focus off her idiotic claim and put it on "look how mean Rush/conservatives are". No one is talking about how this "mocked one of the logical end-points of the so-called "Sexual Revolution"". An interpretation that exists only in your mind, or in the minds of an extreme minority compared to the vast majority, is a tactically and strategically useless interpretation here.
Any so-called "conservative" who says "I don't care what effect language has, I'm going to say whatever I want - in fact, I'm going to go out of my way to say things I think will cause an uproar" should realize there's a name for someone who thinks their way.
"Useful idiot."
Westboro Baptist Church absolutely, positively acts as if they "hate fags". In theory, they absolutely abhor any and all "gay rights". They are purposefully obnoxious and offensive on this point.
Are their actions a net loss or gain for gay rights advocates?
If you say net loss, you are completely freaking blind. If you say net gain, you've conceded the core point I'm making here.
You don't need me to tell you, but you are of course perfectly correct.
To be a slut is not in the least shameful to those who are purporting to be offended. A very sharp observation.
What will happen, I suppose, is that the language will be neutralised: a value-void term will be created from nothing and nowhere to describe sluts, and 'slut' itself will become the s word. And another debate will be closed down.
Would it really be any different to just say, "She is a loose woman"? The more you clamp down on terminology for politically correct reasons, the more new terms ultimately spring up. People aren't so stupid that they miss the true meaning, just because one word gets criminalized. Euphemisms become synonyms.
Would it really be any different to just say, "She is a loose woman"? The more you clamp down on terminology for politically correct reasons, the more new terms ultimately spring up.
One problem there is that terminology matters. For instance, there was a major attempt once upon a time (and there still are lesser attempts) to get "pro-life" people branded as "anti-choice". You can say, 'Well hey, it's just a new term, why put up a fight? Why not just say anti-choice'? And the problem is, because anti-choice sounds rotten in a soundbite. Look at these people, opposing choice, and choice is good! Pro-life? That sounds a lot better.
In fact, of all the various conservative movements, I think it's instructive that the pro-lifers have made the most gains and have lost the least ground compared to many others (see gay marriage, etc.) And part of that came from - surprise - the pro-lifers fighting the battle very much like gay rights advocates fight their battles. Battling to the hilt over terminology. Making major noise over perceived slights. Highlighting emotion, etc.
Pro-life and anti-choice are both stupid labels. The correct term is anti-abortion.
Pro-life and anti-choice are both stupid labels. The correct term is anti-abortion.
Correct according to who?
What if reading that a given law was "pro-life" made voters more likely to support it than if it were called "anti-abortion"?
If that were established, would you say that people who opposed abortion should argue "No, call it an anti-abortion bill in our advertising and when we present our case. Not pro-life. Sure, people are more likely to support it if it's called pro-life, but that doesn't matter."?
Correct according to logic. I don't give a damn about emotional garbage. I think people eventually see through that crap. And even if they don't, I just refuse to get entangled in it.
Correct according to logic.
Really? Alright, I'm game. I would love to see "the correct term is anti-abortion, not pro-life" logically demonstrated. I await the demonstration.
I suspect that no demonstration is forthcoming, and you don't understand what you're claiming when you say that some particular label is the right one "according to logic".
I don't give a damn about emotional garbage. I think people eventually see through that crap.
Yeah? Your emotions never play a role in how you perceive things, or how you react to things? You never reflexively, even for a moment, react to an idea based on the words used to describe it, the source it's coming from, or even the tone it's described with?
You say people "eventually see through that crap". First, I'd love to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Second, even if they "eventually" do, there's a period of time where they do not. And that may be a period of time they spend actually listening to your argument and trying to understand it, rather than writing it off entirely or listen to someone else's argument.
Or maybe they "eventually" don't. Maybe most people don't think very deeply about many issues and they go with the cultural flow. In which case, learning how to control and combat and direct that flow starts to become pretty damn important.
And even if they don't, I just refuse to get entangled in it.
Surprise! You don't have a choice!
It matters, like it or not. Even if you never think about it because you don't like it, or because it's too confusing for you. And chances are, yes, you do willingly get "entangled in it" anyway. Do you ever wait for someone to be in a good mood before you ask them for or about something? You have a job I'm sure - when you deal with customers or bosses, do you consciously (or better yet, unconsciously) try to "be polite"?
You play this game already. Everyone who isn't full-blown autistic does. And even the autistics play it - they're just typically bad at it.
More important, groups you disagree with play it. You think "gay rights advocates" got where they are today, in the space of 1-2 decades, on the strength of rational argument? They've avoided that crap like the plague, outside of ridiculous strawmen - and even there, usually in fictional contexts. But they've made damn sure to push and control language, image, emotion and more in every venue they could. It's paid off in spades.
You're entangled, like it or not. Everyone is.
If he had said that she is a "loose, promiscuous woman," you think that people would not have been able to figure out that he was calling her a slut?
Pro-life is an incorrect term because most people who are pro-life are also pro-death penalty and also supportive of wars, under at least certain circumstances. And well they should be. Pro-life is a dumb euphemism. It is time to start being honest with our words.
Anti-choice is even worse. It does not even mean anything at all. That's why almost no one ever uses that term. Most people recognize how absurd it is.
Likewise, pro-choice means essentially nothing. Pro-abortion makes more sense, just like you might refer to someone as "pro-slavery" or "anti-slavery," regardless of whether he personally owned slaves.
If he had said that she is a "loose, promiscuous woman," you think that people would not have been able to figure out that he was calling her a slut?
Who said that was the right way to approach this? My line has been her should have had a blast with her numbers. Run how much contraception she'd have to be buying if her figures were correct. Estimate how many partners. Yes, someone could put two and two together and realize 'Hey, he's suggesting that if these numbers are true she's promiscuous'. And the effect would have been different, because the approach matters.
Pro-life is an incorrect term because most people who are pro-life are also pro-death penalty and also supportive of wars, under at least certain circumstances. And well they should be. Pro-life is a dumb euphemism. It is time to start being honest with our words.
Yeah, this is not a "logical demonstration". This is you using a standard that's very close to being "just made up". Hey, some people who are pro-death penalty disagree over what circumstances it should be applied in - guess they are not pro-death penalty after all!
It's not a euphemism, and what determines a label - especially the popular usage of the label - is not "logic".
Anti-choice is even worse. It does not even mean anything at all. That's why almost no one ever uses that term. Most people recognize how absurd it is.
Yeah, because people are all about being ****ing fair with politics, right? No man, the reason "anti-choice" hasn't taken off is because pro-lifers do their damndest to resist the label. It's not for lack of trying on the part of pro-choicers. It's still a term used in liberal circles. It's still a term pushed for.
You even provide evidence of the problems here:
Likewise, pro-choice means essentially nothing. Pro-abortion makes more sense, just like you might refer to someone as "pro-slavery" or "anti-slavery," regardless of whether he personally owned slaves.
Pro-choice "means essentially nothing" you say. Funny how that hasn't mattered whatsoever with regards to the popular use of the label, eh? Why, it's almost as if trying to argue which label is more "logical" or "makes the most sense" is for all purposes meaningless, and that the concerns regarding the labels are directed elsewhere. Like "What will people associate with it?" and "How good does it sound?" or "How do people react when hearing the term?"
I don't know if pro-abortion "makes more sense". I do know that pro-abortion sounds rotten compared to pro-choice, and that pro-choicers fight tooth and nail to NOT get the 'pro-abortion' label. They know what effect it would have at a glance. They know what it communicates. They hate it. It would be a liability to them.
As I said, this is not a game that can be avoided. It's played whether people like it or not, and talking about using the 'most logical terms' is a distraction. Think in terms of effect, because I can guarantee you, your opponents are.
Post a Comment